ATUL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Atul Kumar, the petitioner has brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.236 dated 27.10.2011 registered at Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula for an offence punishable under sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter stands amicably compromised between the petitioner and .. respondent No.2. He drew attention of this court to Annexure P2, the compromise. According to him, respondent No. 2 is also present in person and she has placed on record her short reply by way of affidavit wherein she affirms the fact of the compromise. He has further submitted that though, the offence under section 376 IPC is a serious offence, yet the fact that the matter has been compromised would show that the case would not be supported at the trial by respondent No.2 and would end in acquittal. According to him, if this is the fate of the case, there is no reason to waste the time of the court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this court in Surinder Kamboj and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2008 1 RCR(Cri) 21, in which the prosecution was for an offence punishable under section 376 IPC and the prosecutrix entered into a compromise with the accused and was found not interested in prosecuting the case against the accused. It has been held that there is nothing to suggest that compromise in this case is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that a a Larger Bench of five Hon'ble Judges of this court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007 3 RCR(Cri) 1052 has concluded that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. According to him, it has further been laid down in the said decision that the said power cannot be held limited to matrimonial cases .. alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.